| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MguyX |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 06:07:20
What do you think?
I don't care that a person has made some genuinely great films: an adult who drugs and screws a 13 year old girl is wrong. It's a crime. It's nice that the victim has forgiven him in the years since (after suing and recieving a handome sum), but it does not change the fact of what happened.
I admire, on a personal level, his evasion for 30 years -- good job! But the piper has played and needs to be paid.
Contrary to Whoopi, I say it was "rape-rape". I'd like to see him judged by the standards and negotiations made at the time, but I have to say, as I do believe, he must pay the piper. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sludge |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 00:03:39
Interesting legal points in here.
In the mid 80s while in high school I worked at a library and was curious to see a book of state law entitled "The California Sex Code" or something like that. Going over the finer points, I remember (approximately) that for statutory rape to apply, if under 16 the parents could testify, against the will of the 'victim'. (I put this in quotes because at that time a number of girls were initiating, uh, relationships with guys a couple of years older).
If 16 or 17, the victim would be required to corroborate against the perpetrator.
This is of course separate from rape rape.
But the 58 year old... That's really creepy MguyX.
When my wife and I were scoping out homes, my mother kept looking these things up and telling me exactly how many rapists were in the neighborhood. It's pretty difficult to find a place that won't have a blip on the map within a mile so I stopped worrying about it until we were closer to buying. We got a place in Leimert Park. My next door neighbor is a retired ex-marine who kept our bank-owned house from being vandalized for about 8 months before we got in there. The first six times we visited, he was over at the house in a heartbeat after hearing the gate open. This was virtually the only bank owned house in the county without a spot of graffiti, and all the neighbors communicate well. I am feeling pretty safe even though there's a church across the street. 
|
| MguyX |
Posted - 10/06/2009 : 00:45:43
Here's a creepy story:
In California there's the Megan's Law website, where you can check names, addresses, areas to see where registered sex offenders live. There's a national database too, in case you were curious.
When I moved into my house, I checked the database to see who was living around me. Up pops the MapQuest style map with a big blue star apparently indicating where I live and sporadic little blue dots indicating where the offenders are. You can click on the dots, and people's pictures and addresses pop up. There were a few dots a few streets away, but nothing too close.
My next door neighbor to the south had lived in his house since he was a child. He was about 58 when I moved in several years ago. Trying to take advantage of the real estate market while it was still in an upswing, he decided to sell his house in early 2007. He was a bit late putting it on the market, and the recession was starting to kick in, but he got it sold after about 8 months. My ex girlfriend told me that he had told her once that his oldest son, who no longer lived with him, had been convicted of a sex crime.
A few days after my neighbor moved, I was chatting with my neighbor to the north. She also had been a long-time resident of the neighborhood (more than 20 years). I mentioned the recent house sale, and she mused "I wonder whether they made him sell it?"
"Who?"
"The neighborhood association. I think they were putting pressure on him." I asked why. "Because of his sex crime convictions." I was shocked to hear this, especially since I have a minor-aged daughter who sometimes stays with me, my neighbor knew this, we spoke frequently, and she had never mentioned this significant little piece of information to me.
I went back to my computer and looked up the information. Sure enough, that big blue star I had seen was not MY house: it was my ex-next-door-neighbor's house! I clicked on it, and up popped his picture and address, along with info about sex crimes committed with "child or children under 14 years of age."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click on the star, people, click on the star. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 18:38:45
"I don't believe anything in my post warranted the insulting arrogance of Mr. BI and I might have been more tolerant if he hadn't done it repeatly in the past. "
I'm not trying to single you out and pretty much everything I say on this particular forum is toned down from what I'd say in other places. I don't believe I've crossed the line of civil discourse, now or elsewhere, and I'm not trying to be provocative. I disagreed with your point. I did think you were trying to make a point about Polanski, but whether or not you were, I still don't agree that plying a girl with alcohol can even be uttered in the same sentence as drugging a girl into unconsciousness so that she is physically incapable of consenting or resisting. There's nothing comparable about the two.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 13:00:26
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
Thanks, MguyX. It really helps to have a lawyer in the house. Now about this speeding ticket I got... 
Good thinking Livie.
Best not to go straight into the "Ex-boyfriends buried under the patio" business. Just slowly work it into the conversation.
|
| MguyX |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 10:41:07
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I completely understand her desire not to go through all this again, but the victim doesn't get to decide whether her rapist gets charged, anymore than Polanski could have decided whether Charles Manson got charged.
This is completely true. Many people get this wrong: once an "alleged" crime has been reported to the police, the "victim" has no say over whether it will be prosecuted. The idea of "pressing charges" is a myth: if the police investigation leads them to believe an offense has been commmitted, they give the "complaint" to the prosecutors, who determine whether charges should be filed. The victim becomes only a witness.
The concept of "pressing charges" is exactly as it actually means: the witness "presses" the charges brought (as in, lends weight to it); the victim does not determine whether charges are brought (unless the victim refuses to speak about it in the first instance).
VICTIMS: speak.
THE ACCUSED: get a good lawyer. |
| MguyX |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 10:12:24
O.K. I understand your message about flexible morality, sexuality and sexism, and I have to agree.
I don't know too much about the personal insult issue, however, though I did not see the arrogance issue. I guess if Mr.B wants to respond, he will, and I fear I am treading into unwelcome waters to suggest a "defense," as he is aptly able to speak for himself. I just don't think he was trying to offend.
I won't belabor the topic, at least any more than we already have. Historical concepts of the male-female relationship are myriad and full of sexual-criminal hypocrisy. I will -- no, I must -- grant you that men have historically subjugated women at any age to thier sexual-political whims. With regard to women of younger age, there are few if any to tout their power. But that is the underpinning of underage sex laws; ironically, it is a paternalistic way to protect young women and girls from the "pater" (and, I am sure unexpectedly, young men and boys). On one level, it is an acknowledgement of the error of male-paternalistic domination of the so-called weaker gender, at least on the sexual level. On the other hand, it is a condemnation of predatory sex-practice on the youth of tender years.
If Juliette was 14, then Romeo was probably 15. It's fiction, albeit Shakespeare, but nobody's going to jail. Add to that the fact that the message missed by many is that kids should not be left to their own devices in such life-affecting matters as family planning, and again there is the message that even youth should be protected from the folly of youthful decision/indecision. You can't stop kids from being kids; but you can try and stop adults from being "in" kids, even if not the desire. Hence, statutory rape laws.
Mr.B will probably be a little miffed at me for going on about this, as he did not invite my intervention. I like him; sometimes aloof, but ingenuous, I find his filmic discourse enlightening and entertaining.[FN] I like you, Beebs, and I find your critico-filmic CV and opinion awe-inspiring. Apparently I like compound words and hyphens, too.
That's my two cents. I'm sure to get a dollar or a pound in change, but hey, a brotha gots to make money somehow in this economy.
[FN]Grammatically, that is a misplace modifier, as "I" was not the subject of the modifying intro. But it sounded good, so fuck off to anyone who wants to call me on it!  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 09:13:56
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I don't think Mr.B was chiding you Beebs, but then again, maybe I missed something too. 
My post was NOT about Polanski or the case. If you read it, my post is about a bigger picture of the flexible nature of morality and the hypocrisy of society in the muddy mixed messages it sends. I was not equating coercion with rape, merely comparing them. I never said seduction was illegal - I implied getting someone drunk enough to fuck them was immoral.
I hope things are better now, though I don't see any huge evidence of it - but when I was "in the market" men expected to manipulate girls, women into having sex with them. I won't say we girls, women expected it, too, but those of us who had self-esteem issues, which is practically everyone, were continually being coerced in many, many ways.
Let's be clear - I grew up in a time of very different public/private morality. I wasn't a prostitute, and I was far from alone in my behavior. I had lots of sex with lots of different men and, looking back, it's almost funny the ways that they presented sex as the only option. Bear in mind we had no sex education, "normal" sexual behavior wasn't a topic of conversation, myth prevailed over fact, our parents were far more screwed up than they'd ever admit ... blah, blah, blah.
The conclusion of my post tried to evoke a lot of that context.
I posted my thoughts because I'm always wary of any particular case being used to extrapolate. Both laws and morals are mutable in the longer term. I don't believe anything in my post warranted the insulting arrogance of Mr. BI and I might have been more tolerant if he hadn't done it repeatly in the past. Since he doesn't seem to take a dump on anyone else, I think my paranoia may be justified.
Perhaps you're missing some of that, honey.
|
| MguyX |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 07:04:46
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Apparently I misunderstood something. What am I missing?
I'm a bit at a loss here, too, Beebs. I think Mr.B was pointing out that the use of a mood altering substance (or mere personal persuasion) is not per se an instument of rape, but that it certainly can be. In fact, it appears quite clear that he agrees the use of some substances leans very heavily toward rape instrumentality, but that the circumstances of the act have to be weighed to determine whether rape has occurred (e.g., a person given rohypnol can certainly be said to have ingested a substance that negates will, but whether the will was present before the ingestion may still be a quetion to answer before declaring it rape). I think his point was to raise the somewhat academic, but absolutely probative question of consent under the circumstances present in a given situation, which remains a sticky wicket.
I have to agree, however, that the ethical issue is not muddy: in 1976 or 1977, when the event occurred in California, the law classified the act as rape per se notwithstanding the issue of consent. And I do not recall the victim ever saying that she gave consent at the time. As to the other, historical examples given, I agree that societal views on the matter have gone through many changes over time, but contemporary views -- and legal classifications -- have come to the point where we are now, which is pretty much where we were in 1977. It is rare in Western society that marriages between adults and pre-16 year olds are allowed. But Polanski wasn't marrying the girl: he was just getting his honeymoon on in a patently illegal way -- he boozed AND drugged her, did not obtain consent, then he illegally fucked that 13 year old girl. Again, I don't see that as muddy ethics. That's "rape-rape" with a "statutory-rape" chaser.
Compare that to the case of a friend nearly 20 years ago. He was 18. His girlfriend was 17. They had consensual sex. Her mom found out and went apeshit. He was arrested, convicted of statutory rape and served about two years in prison. He has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. That is a muddy situation. And all we are left with in that circumstance is this cold fact: "dura lex, sed lex".
I don't think Mr.B was chiding you Beebs, but then again, maybe I missed something too. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 22:44:44
From today's paper.
Also from today's paper: Roman Polanski - "Did I say that?"
He did wrong, he should pay the price. Unless, of course, there is a statute of limitation on rape. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 18:46:07
Apparently I misunderstood something. What am I missing?
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 17:08:14
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I completely understand her desire not to go through all this again, but the victim doesn't get to decide whether her rapist gets charged, anymore than Polanski could have decided whether Charles Manson got charged. That's not justice.
Also, yes, yes, Polanski is not a threat or a priority, and the trial may have been legally questionable. But he is in fact a rapist.
quote:
Any teenage boy, young man, or old man who's poured alcohol into a girl or woman in order to get her drunk enough to fuck is coercing. Or rohypnol or equivalent.
What? Seduction isn't illegal, and isn't rape, even in questionably ethical circumstances. Getting someone drunk to have sex them isn't illegal either (and if it is, I know a lot of people who raped each other simultaneously.) The difference between alcohol and rohypnol is that unless you've had way, WAY too much to drink, you can still give consent, and if you don't, it's still rape. Rohypnol robs you of your ability to consent one way or another, which is why it's used in rape.
The ethics of the Polanski case aren't muddy at all. It's very clear that Polanski needs to go to jail, that he has cheated justice, and I say that as a huge fan of his work. But he did rape a 13-year-old, and that's an unavoidable fact.
Gee, I really hope some day you'll learn to read instead of rushing to shit over someone's head. What's your fucking problem?
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 16:41:24
I completely understand her desire not to go through all this again, but the victim doesn't get to decide whether her rapist gets charged, anymore than Polanski could have decided whether Charles Manson got charged. That's not justice.
Also, yes, yes, Polanski is not a threat or a priority, and the trial may have been legally questionable. But he is in fact a rapist.
quote:
Any teenage boy, young man, or old man who's poured alcohol into a girl or woman in order to get her drunk enough to fuck is coercing. Or rohypnol or equivalent.
What? Seduction isn't illegal, and isn't rape, even in questionably ethical circumstances. Getting someone drunk to have sex them isn't illegal either (and if it is, I know a lot of people who raped each other simultaneously.) The difference between alcohol and rohypnol is that unless you've had way, WAY too much to drink, you can still give consent, and if you don't, it's still rape. Rohypnol robs you of your ability to consent one way or another, which is why it's used in rape.
The ethics of the Polanski case aren't muddy at all. It's very clear that Polanski needs to go to jail, that he has cheated justice, and I say that as a huge fan of his work. But he did rape a 13-year-old, and that's an unavoidable fact. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 04:55:25
Thanks, MguyX. It really helps to have a lawyer in the house. Now about this speeding ticket I got... |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 10:26:54
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
A child rapist is a child rapist, and I don't think anyone should ever be able to rest in the knowledge that they got away with something of that nature.
OK, with hindsight we can now say that the 'damage done' wasn't great or lasting; the proof is the victim's public forgiveness of her rapist. None of that changes the fact that what he did might have wrecked someone's life, and the punishment should reflect that.
The victim wants this matter over and done with. Is anyone surprised? Polanski could have ended this at any time by going back to face the music... but he chose not to. So perhaps the time has come for the system to end this matter once and for all.
I have a huge problem with the fact that the publicity of all this seems to be counter-productive. I recall that the victim publicly asked people to forget about it all, back when Polanski was nominated and won the Oscar for The Pianist. Making this whole thing public is just dredging it all up for her once again, and I don't think that's what she wants.
Would that the media would respect her wishes, first and foremost, and thereby allow the legal system to do what they have to do, in private.
|
| MguyX |
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 07:49:05
To answer livie's question:
The parties reached an agreement, and Polanski pled guilty, which is why he served the minimal time he did for psychiatric evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was to see how he would acclimatize to prison (a whole different inquiry). Because he pled guilty, he is a convicted felon.
Polanski's case is in limbo because he was never sentenced. The liability phase of a criminal proceeding is separate from the penalty phase.
When a person pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain, he or she is entitled to withdraw the plea and go to trial if the sentence given deviates materially from the sentence agreed upon: the court is not bound by the plea deal, but the defendant is not bound to the deal if not honored.
In Polanski's case, it appears that he could seek to withdraw his plea if he does not get the deal originally offered. What complicates matters is the fact that he fled the jurisdiction to evade punishment, which is a separate crime.
I project that the court will impose the original sentence agreed upon, thus eliminating the possibility of plea withdrawal, but all bets are off on the additional offense of fleeing. I quote section 1320.5 of the California Penal Code ["Heh heh ... he said 'penal' ..."]:Every person who is charged with or convicted of the commission of a felony, who is released from custody on bail, and who in order to evade the process of the court willfully fails to appear as required, is guilty of a felony. Upon a conviction under this section, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Willful failure to appear within 14 days of the date assigned for appearance may be found to have been for the purpose of evading the process of the court. Given the flagrance of the action, I think the court would be hard-pressed not to sentence Polanski to the maximum year on the evasion charge (he's lucky he didn't escape from confinement: that would have been another 3 years).
So it looks like Roman is looking at one year on evasion and 16 months on "unlawful sex with a minor". The court could sentence him to consecutive terms or a concurrent term. My bet is consecutive, but Hollywood has demonstrated repeatedly that if you've got money and media appeal, you can get away with murder, isn't that right O.J.?
He should waive extradition and just get this over with: there is no guarantee that he will get any credit for time served, if his lawyers are thinking that he can stay in a cushy Swiss jail for a while as they fight extradition. In fact, recent trend with the L.A. D.A's office is to make defendants waive pretrial confinement credits as part of any deal.
He could be in and out in nine months, is my outside estimate, if he just gets this crap taken care of now. They will put him in a minimum security prison on keep-away status, so it's not like he'll be pumping iron in the yard with the Aryan Brotherhood. Pay the piper, man, just pay him. |
|
|
